smug

U.S. not obliged to defend Canada in event of North Korean missile attack, MPs told

The highest-ranking Canadian officer at Norad has demolished a long-held political assumption by telling a parliamentary committee that the U.S. is under no obligation to defend Canada in the event of a ballistic missile attack.

Lt.-Gen. Pierre St-Amand laid out on Thursday — in stark terms — where the military lines of each nation begin and end in the event the North Korean crisis erupts into a shooting war.

“The extent of the U.S. policy is not to defend Canada,” said St-Amand, who is the deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, which is responsible for defending the skies and maritime approaches to North America. “That’s the fact I can bring to the table.”

The debate over whether Canada should join the U.S. ballistic missile defence program re-emerged this summer following a series of successful intercontinental missile tests by North Korea, including another missile launch from that country’s capital Pyongyang on Friday.

The missile flew over Japan before landing in the northern Pacific Ocean. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said it travelled about 3,700 kilometres, reaching a maximum height of 770 kilometres.

February 25, 2005

The Liberal government in its recent defence policy review chose to uphold a 2005 decision by former prime minister Paul Martin to remain outside of the U.S. missile shield.

The often-cited political narrative has been that the U.S. would shoot down a missile if it was headed toward Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

St-Amand made clear that is not guaranteed and it would be a decision made “in the heat of the moment” by U.S. political and military leaders. (Source: CBC News)

Canadians, Donald Trump’s candidacy is no reason to panic

Since the 1990s, the U.S. political roller coaster has often confounded Canadians. Many scoffed when the largest country in the world seemed to be paralyzed for months by the oldest scandal in the world — a married man, Bill Clinton, making time with a younger woman, Monica Lewinsky, who wasn’t his wife. Many were dismayed when the eminently prime-ministerial Al Gore lost to the easily mockable George W. Bush in 2000 — especially because Gore won more popular votes than Bush did. Still, nothing compares to the panic and horror Donald Trump’s candidacy has evoked.

Canadian confusion about the American presidential campaign circus makes sense: most Americans are equally disturbed. This campaign has been one of the most surprising and upsetting clashes in decades, and it has only just begun. Remember the too-long Canadian campaign of 78 days? U.S. Election Day, Nov. 8, is still eight months away.

The United States appears hopelessly divided, with the Republican surprise and the Democratic surprise suggesting the country is being pulled in opposite directions. Bernie Sanders may be the American Canadians most love to love: down-to-earth, earnest, substantive, unstylish, collectivist and socialist in a cuddly, non-Stalinist way. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is the type of American Canadians most love to hate: arrogant, flamboyant, egotistical, jingoistic and demagogic, playing personality politics.

A president Donald Trump meeting Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would be even more awkward than Ronald Reagan meeting Pierre Trudeau. When they met in 1981, Reagan wore a suitably statesmanlike dark suit with a conservative striped tie, while Trudeau, looking more Floridian than Washingtonian, wore an open-necked shirt with a tan sports jacket, while sporting a dandyish red rose. (Continued: Montreal Gazette)